Reported By: Salil Tiwari
Last Updated: November 21, 2023, 02:01 IST
While additionally highlighting that Irfan had been in custody since February 2022, the HC exercised its powers to grant bail to him.
(File photograph: IANS)
The excessive court docket, after perusal of the proof, together with the assertion of a protected witness allegedly threatened by the accused Irfan, concluded that whereas the risk is likely to be an offence, it would not essentially qualify as assist to a terrorist organisation
In a major verdict, the Madras High Court has dominated that merely threatening somebody by claiming affiliation with an ISIS terrorist doesn’t robotically set up one’s membership within the organisation amounting to an offence beneath Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
“The prosecution has to establish the support to the terrorist organisation by independent evidence,” mentioned the division bench of Justices SS Sundar and Sunder Mohan to one Mohamed Irfan, a meat vendor accused of conspiring to set up Islamic rule in India.
The order was handed in Irfan’s enchantment in opposition to rejection of his bail plea by a Special NIA court docket in a case, the place he was accused of offences beneath Section 18 of the UAPA for conspiring to commit a terrorist act and Section 39 relating to assist given to a terrorist organisation.
According to the prosecution, Sathick Batcha, the first accused in a case on the Mayiladuthurai police station, was intercepted with arms in a Mahindra Scorpio on February 21, 2022. Allegedly, Irfan and the opposite accused had been within the automobile, main to their arrest on fees beneath numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
The case took a flip when the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over, re-registering it beneath related IPC sections and UAPA provisions. The NIA alleged that Irfan, related with Batcha, aimed to set up Islamic rule in India akin to the ISIS ideology.
The NIA cited conspiracy conferences at particular areas and referred to witness statements and WhatsApp group messages as proof. The court docket, nonetheless, emphasised {that a} mere risk, even when associating with ISIS, doesn’t robotically represent assist to a terrorist organisation beneath Section 39 of the UAPA.
The bench, after perusal of the proof, together with the assertion of a protected witness allegedly threatened by Irfan, concluded that whereas the risk is likely to be an offence, it doesn’t essentially qualify as assist to a terrorist organisation. The court docket highlighted the necessity for unbiased proof to set up such assist.
Additionally, the court docket famous that the allegation in opposition to Irfan that he dealt with funds for Batcha didn’t infer assist for a terrorist organisation, distinguishing between assist to a person and assist to a terrorist organisation. Support to a person is totally different from assist to a terrorist organisation, the bench mentioned.
Accordingly, whereas additionally highlighting that Irfan had been in custody since February 2022, the bench exercised its powers to grant bail to him.
